Site Mobile Navigation

On the Rooftop, Mystery Huts

Cabanas? Elevator sheds? The nature of the structures atop an Atlantic Avenue building depends on whom you ask.Credit
Patrick Andrade for The New York Times

SINCE the fall, people have been living in the new building at 200 Atlantic Avenue, in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, and the building’s developer says it has been largely full for almost as long. But for neighbors who have opposed the building for months, arguing that it exceeded local height limits, the struggle continues. They have caught the developer in a lie, they say, and they want the top of the structure removed.

The disagreement began a year ago when the developer, Two Trees Management, was faced with a rule in the Cobble Hill Historic District that limited the height of new buildings to 50 feet instead of the 60 that the company had hoped for. In the spring, though, Two Trees began building rooftop huts that, neighbors complained, brought the building over the height limit.

The developer said the huts were just stairway and elevator bulkheads, structures allowed under the zoning. Neighbors, though, charged that they were a clear height violation, habitable spaces in disguise or cabanas, as some critics called them.

A stalemate continued, with apartments in the building being marketed and rented, until October. That was when Jeff Strabone, president of the Cobble Hill Association, a local group, went to an open house at the building for prospective renters.

Inquiring about the rooftop structures, “I was told by the agents that one could fit a bed up there, one could make it a spare room, all these things,” Mr. Strabone recalled. He was also given a promotional flier for the building with a floor plan, on which one of the supposed bulkheads was labeled “Penthouse.”

Mr. Strabone took his findings to the city’s Department of Buildings, where plans on file sometimes referred to the structures as “mechanical penthouses” but also specified, in accordance with the zoning, that they were not for habitation.

“To the Department of Buildings, they continue to say it’s a stair bulkhead, but to the public they say, ‘Come rent our penthouses,’ ” Mr. Strabone said. “I imagine if they said, ‘Come rent our stair bulkhead,’ they wouldn’t get so many tenants.”

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Barbara Wagner, a spokeswoman for Two Trees, said that the rooftop structures were simply stairway access to the roof. “In fact,” she said, “tenants are specifically alerted to the fact that their leases strictly prohibit using the inside of these bulkheads.” The floor plan depicting the penthouse, she said, was posted by mistake on a Web site created by an outside company, then removed as soon as Two Trees saw it.

In November, presented with the Cobble Hill Association’s evidence, the department notified Two Trees that the construction permit issued for the project would be revoked, even though the building was occupied.

Two Trees has been in talks with the city ever since. In a statement released through Ms. Wagner, the spokeswoman, the company said, “This issue was resolved months ago and the building is built fully in conformance with all Department of Buildings and Department of City Planning regulations, stipulations and requests and filed drawings.”

Meanwhile, Carly Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Buildings, said the developer had submitted its own documents supporting its argument that the structures are legal. “The department is reviewing the documents,” Ms. Sullivan added, “and will take action based upon the findings.”

To Mr. Strabone, the solution is simple. “The only way to address an illegal structure is to dismantle it,” he said. “We’re not going to rest until the penthouses are dismantled.”